RS5 at Geneva

[footie]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

I don't believe in dyno figures as a means to any logical conclusion. My point was just to show how inconsistent Audi is when it comes to their marketing of power figures. It was purely cautionary so as to not get wrapped up in their claims. The only way to be certain the RS5 is quicker than the M3 is to have a chart of wheel torque by rpm from a reputable 3rd party such as RRI and factoring in gearing to determine force and then factor in mass. Without that you can't determine anything.

I'm not saying you're incorrect in your assumption but all remains to be seen. And hopefully you won't rely on Audi's stated acceleration figures as fact, whenever they are available.

All manufacturers tend to manipulate reality. After all, they are trying to best the competition mainly in the sales department.

Ultimately the name of the game is to produce performance with as much economy as possible. Anyone can best acceleration figures of an existing model, if they're willing to pay the price at the pumps. Personally I think the current M3's performance is not so impressive when you factor in economy. With as much gas as it drinks, I'd expect it to be quicker.

I'm only said that too many of us believe the figures produced by quattro on dyno machines and think they are a geniune reflection of the power being producing by the engine, this isn't true and the reason for this is the performance data produced by both the RS4 and M3, these cars aren't far apart in 0-60mph, 0-100mph, 1/4mile and 0-125mph.

All I am saying is that when the RS5 is finally tested you will be that my opinion is not only correct but is very accurate.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by footie

Wrong on the handling, it will actually amaze you how well it handles and sadly you are right, chances are this car won't make it into the US, though I do hope Audi change their mind because you guys deserve the chances to consider it.

It needs to be better than the B7 then if it's going to handle better.

[Trier Germany]

The RS5 should be pretty damb impressive! But im still not a fan of Audi

[footie]

Originally Posted by Levi

SUV on the track? Porsche Cayenne Turbo S.
Audi S/RS High-Reving NA? Only R8 and RS5. S3, S4,TT-S, TT-RS, RS6 are all FI. Audi will also step over to FI. The next RS6, R8 and Gallardo will get a 4.0l Biturbo V8. The next RS4 will get a 3.0l Biturbo V6. If there comes an RS3 it will get the 2.5l Turbo I5, the one of the TT-RS.
RS5 Racing-Inspired Sportcar? Where is RWD?
The only Audi worthy of RS is the R8 10 FSI, and yet only until BMW hasn't came out with its own Supercar. I wonder if we will see more RS5 or M3 on the track. Audi S/RS are a poser cars. It is for those that have no identity, for who need to feed their ego.

You are entitled to your opinion but to make such a bold sweeping statement like that is the eqivalent to someone claiming the the only car worthy of the M badge is the M3 GTS or CSL because all others don't live up to the same high standards. All S and RS models are is Audi interpretation of what a high performance car is based on their awd drivetrain. They are no more about posing than an M or AMG is.

In fact I would said that because of their awd system they are less of a powers car than a rwd one simply because more people can experience and enjoy the car's true potential.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

Some of you believe exclusively in dyno figures but the one figure you should be looking more close at is the power to weight. The simple fact is that the RS4 posts near enough identical times and speeds in the 1/4mile discipline, the only reason it's slightly below the M3 figures is it's slightly worse ptw and nothing else. Now if the dyno results for it's awd systemwere indeed correct then those figures wouldn't be even close to that of the M3 but this isn't the case.

The RS5 will be quicker than the M3 in acceleration, of this I am certain.

After more than 3 years, I certainly would expect that Audi would try to extract more than just 30hp from the same engine. The E92 M3 6MT really smoked the crap out of the B7 RS4.

"So what did you thought of that race?" -Gustav
"Well I was a little bit disappointed..." -RS4 driver

Poor guy... lol.

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

After more than 3 years, I certainly would expect that Audi would try to extract more than just 30hp from the same engine. The E92 M3 6MT really smoked the crap out of the B7 RS4.

"So what did you thought of that race?" -Gustav
"Well I was a little bit disappointed..." -RS4 driver

Poor guy... lol.

May I ask you, is that video consistant with the data currently available from huge amount of data from the world's top magazine tests which has been compiled on this forum?

0-100km/h figures
BMW E92 M3: 4.5s (AUTO-Italian Mag)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.6s (Auto Bild)
BMW E92 M3: 4.6s (AMS)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 4.6 (Edmunds, C&D short take)
Audi RS4: 4.6s (Automobil A)

1/4mile figures
BMW E92 M3: 12.5s @ 114.8 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 12.6 @ 113.2 mph (MT)
BMW E90 M3: 12.6 @ 113mph (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 12.7s @ 111.3mph (MT)
BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.7 @ 113 mph
Audi RS4: 12.8 @ 109 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3: 12.9 @ 111 mph (C&D)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.0 @ 107.9 mph (Edmunds 7-15-08)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.1 @ 109 mph (C&D Short-take Sept. 2008)
Audi RS4: 13.1 @ 111.5 mph (AutoCar)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.4s @ ?112mph? (Sportscars)
BMW E92 M3: 13.3 @ 112 mph (AutoCar)

What this compiled data shows that while the M3 is quicker it difference is consistant with it's less weight and thus superior PTW and has nothing to do with drivetrain loss.

Regarding the Gustav events, they are purely for entertainment because without knowing if they are completely stock from the factory it's possible to use them as proof positive.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

May I ask you, is that video consistant with the data currently available from huge amount of data from the world's top magazine tests which has been compiled on this forum?

0-100km/h figures
BMW E92 M3: 4.5s (AUTO-Italian Mag)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.6s (Auto Bild)
BMW E92 M3: 4.6s (AMS)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 4.6 (Edmunds, C&D short take)
Audi RS4: 4.6s (Automobil A)

1/4mile figures
BMW E92 M3: 12.5s @ 114.8 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 12.6 @ 113.2 mph (MT)
BMW E90 M3: 12.6 @ 113mph (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 12.7s @ 111.3mph (MT)
BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.7 @ 113 mph
Audi RS4: 12.8 @ 109 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3: 12.9 @ 111 mph (C&D)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.0 @ 107.9 mph (Edmunds 7-15-08)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.1 @ 109 mph (C&D Short-take Sept. 2008)
Audi RS4: 13.1 @ 111.5 mph (AutoCar)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.4s @ ?112mph? (Sportscars)
BMW E92 M3: 13.3 @ 112 mph (AutoCar)

What this compiled data shows that while the M3 is quicker it difference is consistant with it's less weight and thus superior PTW and has nothing to do with drivetrain loss.

Regarding the Gustav events, they are purely for entertainment because without knowing if they are completely stock from the factory it's possible to use them as proof positive.

All of your data comes from standing starts. Also, the trap speeds indicated on your data and data from this/other forums show that the Audi is consistently ~3-5 mph slower given a better launch. They trap more like an E46 M3 than an E92 M3. That is pretty consistent data with how badly the RS4 gets spanked in the video posted above. Trap speed is pretty much a measurement of wheel horsepower. ET heavily favors cars that can get off the line better... which is nice, but not relevant to me, because...

As you probably know, standing starts are very hard on drivetrains and about ten times worse for AWD drivetrains as they are for RWD ones- so I never do them. I am more interested in how the car will perform from a roll or on a track since those are environments that I see myself using the car in.

It certainly looks like it's going to be a nice and interesting car but to say conclusively that it will be quicker than the M3 from a roll is a little bit premature if it is true that it is using a slightly reworked RS4 drivetrain.

[KonigsTiger]

Nice RS5, just a tad surprised the wheel arches/flares are not more pronounced, a la RS4, 6 etc...

[footie]

Originally Posted by KonigsTiger

Nice RS5, just a tad surprised the wheel arches/flares are not more pronounced, a la RS4, 6 etc...

Unlike the RS4 and RS6 the wheel track f & r of the normal A5 was already much wider than the competition so there wasn't the same need to extend this beyond what you see here.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by footie

Unlike the RS4 and RS6 the wheel track f & r of the normal A5 was already much wider than the competition so there wasn't the same need to extend this beyond what you see here.

good point!......
as well: they probably didn't want add additional weight to an already heavy car.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by footie

Unlike the RS4 and RS6 the wheel track f & r of the normal A5 was already much wider than the competition so there wasn't the same need to extend this beyond what you see here.

Oh yes, sure I understand that, still, I´ve grown to really like the aggressive flaring on RS models. And well, I still like it a lot, but would have liked that traditional RS flaring.

[MI6]

Interesting that it doesn't come with a manual and does not have the flat bottom steering wheel of previous RS's......

I wonder if this could be a future RS trend mates.........

[Jaypod]

Originally Posted by KonigsTiger

Oh yes, sure I understand that, still, I´ve grown to really like the aggressive flaring on RS models. And well, I still like it a lot, but would have liked that traditional RS flaring.

+1000 Big mistake by Audi IMO

[330CIZHP]

That was because RS4 B7 was developed to outperform the E46 M3. The E9X M3 was not even in the concept stage yet. It achieved that without any disputes even with E46 M3 having competition package.

E9X M3 came out to outperform the RS4 B7 and that is how the engineers officially had modelled the car that it is faster in ever possible way than the RS4 in the dry when it comes to handling and acceleration, which is why it comprehensively achieved that without any disputes since it had A LOT better power-to-weight ratio due to 300 lbs lighter weight, dynos higher due to less drivetrain loss and a wider powerband thanks to a flatter torque plateau up to a higher rev limit of 8400 rpm.

That does not mean the new RS5 will not outperform the E9X M3. It is a newer product and it will definitely outperform the E9X M3. Regarding the 450 HP figure, that is only a guess. No one has an official confirmation. My guess is Audi is atleast putting out 470 - 490 HP in the RS5 in order to try and comprehensively outperform all the current cars.

Yet again, the biggest achievement is Audi sticking to its principles and guns of putting a race-bred high-revving engine with even a higher rev limit than the RS4 (remember, RS4 redlined at 8000 rpm) of 8500 rpm to give it the true genes of a race car bred for the streets rather than succumbing to the temptations of taking the easier way out of slapping a turbo on a small displacement engine.

Originally Posted by smmmurf

After more than 3 years, I certainly would expect that Audi would try to extract more than just 30hp from the same engine. The E92 M3 6MT really smoked the crap out of the B7 RS4.

"So what did you thought of that race?" -Gustav
"Well I was a little bit disappointed..." -RS4 driver

Poor guy... lol.

[footie]

To those that expected a more aggressive looking RS5 like of old, may I suggest waiting and seeing it for real and not just in photos, believe me it's everything you have come to expect and more.

Regarding it's actual output, well can I say it's more than enough.

[H Bomb]

^
i'm just happy it has a NA engine in it, now if it will have a true manual i will be set

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

That was because RS4 B7 was developed to outperform the E46 M3. The E9X M3 was not even in the concept stage yet. It achieved that without any disputes even with E46 M3 having competition package.

E9X M3 came out to outperform the RS4 B7 and that is how the engineers officially had modelled the car that it is faster in ever possible way than the RS4 in the dry when it comes to handling and acceleration, which is why it comprehensively achieved that without any disputes since it had A LOT better power-to-weight ratio due to 300 lbs lighter weight, dynos higher due to less drivetrain loss and a wider powerband thanks to a flatter torque plateau up to a higher rev limit of 8400 rpm.

That does not mean the new RS5 will not outperform the E9X M3. It is a newer product and it will definitely outperform the E9X M3. Regarding the 450 HP figure, that is only a guess. No one has an official confirmation. My guess is Audi is atleast putting out 470 - 490 HP in the RS5 in order to try and comprehensively outperform all the current cars.

Yet again, the biggest achievement is Audi sticking to its principles and guns of putting a race-bred high-revving engine with even a higher rev limit than the RS4 (remember, RS4 redlined at 8000 rpm) of 8500 rpm to give it the true genes of a race car bred for the streets rather than succumbing to the temptations of taking the easier way out of slapping a turbo on a small displacement engine.

I also think it's nice that someone else is sticking with a high-rev, N/A engine. (The last RS4 actually redlined at 8,250 RPM, not 8,000).

You put it nicely. Your guess is that the car makes 470-490hp. But that is all you and footie are doing- guessing. Statements like "it will be quicker than the E92 M3" or "it will make 490hp" are premature. Why? If they use a derivative of the RS4/R8 V8, it is still a ~4.2L V8 and adding a few RPM's and retuning it will likely not make it 20% more efficient. After all, the R8 only makes 518hp with its new FSI V10 engine from the R8 and that car came out just last year.

Of course we don't know which car is faster. Heck, we don't know if Audi is BSing the press and is actually including a new 4.0L FSI V8 TT engine until the car is actually released.

[footie]

I already know that it's quicker than the M3. But you will have wait another week and a bit before you will know everything about it.

[Ca$hOnly]

I wish BMW could come up with an interior like this. Absolutely amazing. The exterior on the otherhand is very understated. I'd like it to be a little more aggressive looking. Maybe the real deal will look better.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

I already know that it's quicker than the M3. But you will have wait another week and a bit before you will know everything about it.

Sure dude, whatever you say. I don't believe most of what I read on the internet, and I have to immediately call BS unless you can post proof. Even if you do know, not sharing it is as good as it being speculation and opinion like 330CIZHP above.

In fact, we won't find out till next week. We won't even know if it is faster than an M3 until production cars are delivered and put through mag tests and tests like Gustav's roll-on tests. Even if it is faster like you say, my thought is that it will have a tough time putting more than a car or two on an E9x if it in fact uses a modded RS4 engine. It will not leap-frog the current generation M unless Audi goes FI like the C63 will next year with 450 at the crank. It will be lucky to keep up with the current M3 at that power level.

Never did I say that it wasn't a nice car or state that it was going to be slower than the M3. I have, however, expressed my disagreement with your statements that the RS4 was as fast as the E9x M3 because it clearly wasn't, and I have also met posters who say things like 470-490HP with logical criticism that their V10 engine isn't that fast. If you think the RS5 is going to be faster, please share proof or logic or you may be incorrect again as you were with the RS4 rolling acceleration versus the E9x M3...

[330CIZHP]

B7 RS4 had a redline at 8000 rpm and not 8250 rpm. Look here. You can clearly see the redline at 8000 rpm. Still you can easily see him able to rev up to 8250 - 8300 rpm:

Now with the redline at 8400 rpm, I would expect the cut off to be around 8500 rpm.

Now listen to this especially between 0.35 - 0.36 mins and 0.47 - 0.49 mins. It is way more aggressive and has metallic resonance like a sport bike than I have seen the RS4 engine ever sound.

How on earth did you come to that conclusion that only increased redline somehow equates capability to add more power? I would respond exactly the way an S65 gain from 30 - 50 wheel HP from just bolt-ons and tune without every having to touch the redline or the internals

You would be naive to believe that it is the same 4.2 Liter V8. I believe it is a heavily reworked 4.2 Liter V8 with far more modern technological components exactly in line with how VW group did to the Porsche 911 3.8 Liter boxer 6 from one generation to the next which was a heavily reworked version of the 3.8 Liter from the previous version with direct injection added. Afterall, that is how Porsche managed to up the horsepower in the 911 from the same displacement of 3.8L and 7500 rpm redline from generation to the next going from 345 HP to 385 HP while making it cleaner and more emissions free at the sametime. How did that happen?

As it stands, the motor was far from maxed out in the RS4 with 420 HP. That is exactly 100 HP/Liter. With a miltek exhaust and tune, it could easily gain a 20 - 30 wheel HP without any problems. With new and clean technology, I can totally see a 4.2 Liter V8 being able to put out a clean and low emissions 470 - 480 HP without any problems.

Redline has nothing to do with the increase in horsepower. A simple tune can modify the horsepower at the cost of fuel economy, but Audi puts direct injection so I can see the emissions still being clean. Internals can easily be modifed with better technology to improve horsepower without having to increase the redline or increase the emissions.

Originally Posted by smmmurf

I also think it's nice that someone else is sticking with a high-rev, N/A engine. (The last RS4 actually redlined at 8,250 RPM, not 8,000).

You put it nicely. Your guess is that the car makes 470-490hp. But that is all you and footie are doing- guessing. Statements like "it will be quicker than the E92 M3" or "it will make 490hp" are premature. Why? If they use a derivative of the RS4/R8 V8, it is still a ~4.2L V8 and adding a few RPM's and retuning it will likely not make it 20% more efficient. After all, the R8 only makes 518hp with its new FSI V10 engine from the R8 and that car came out just last year.

Of course we don't know which car is faster. Heck, we don't know if Audi is BSing the press and is actually including a new 4.0L FSI V8 TT engine until the car is actually released.

[footie]

Don't assume that it's a minor tweak here and there to the RS4 unit, it's a bit more than just that. And frankly whether you believe I know what I am talking about or not doesn't bother me in the slightest but the more switched on members with equal knowledge of the industry know and that is all that counts in my eyes.

Also regarding the RS4's speed, trap speed and time show both cars are very closely matched, remember there is the rollout with these figures which cancel out a fair bit of the traction advantage the RS4 will have. Listen all I am saying is the gap between both cars isn't vast and it consistant with the PTW on both and has nothing to do with the dyno figures of both, in fact basing your opinion solely on these would give the impression that every one of those horses are working harder in the RS4 than they are in the M3.